Reading mode: Light Dark

D4 x 5D3 ISO series in ACR, IR raws (large file)

Go to last post
Look at this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tienlu/6592665681/meta/in/pool-859900@N24

Its says f2.8 for 50mm/2.5 +LSC on 5d mkII. Should not be possible if +1 stop was added to the exif.

Also this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=25268746&changemode=1

Unless that was changed for mkIII (which I doubt) you're wrong. DR had to open exp time by one stop.
Andre De Angelis said:
DarkShift said:
And according to web sources the effect of the LSC aperture is not shown on the exif data.
Click to expand...
What web sources?
Click to expand...
 
How is this relevant?

I suppose if the D4 chip ends up in a D700s or something.

Please note that ISO 1600 on either camera looks about like ISO 100 color negative film.
 
actually it's sitll not fair to compare at 16MP because downsized 5D3 image will have more detials than D4 straight from de-Bayer.

I think all of them very good till somewhere between 6400 and 12800.
 
Crop from above. Lets guess which image comes from mkIII.



 
rhlpetrus said:
kuklukklak said:
When everyone saw the 5D3 to be 1 stop better on IR, Nikon folks tried to tell the forum that there're dif in speed.
Click to expand...
Jpegs, lots of NR.
rhlpetrus said:
And now they come up with images that show 1D4 one stop better. Hahaha. Nice try. It must take you lots of time to do this, but sorry I dont give it my credit, cause I downloaded the files myself and the 5D3 images looked much better.
Click to expand...
It took exactly the amount of time needed to convert, crop and put on canvas, +- 20 min.

Why don't you post yours?
rhlpetrus said:
BTW, if I upgrade from my 5D1, it'll be the D800 cause I want resolution more, but it seems that the ISO advantage Nikon once had has vanished, the fact remains to be seen anw.
Click to expand...
D800 should be close to D4 up to 3200, then D4 will be better. Re 5D3, D800 should be close up to 6400. Take your pic.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
First, I forgot to tk u for your effort, my bad. But actually I dont want to convince anyone that Canon or Nikon is better than each other. U love Nikon, and think its better, fine, I dont care. So I wont take time to make comparison etc.

I only think that the flooded comparison/dicussion topics are a bit ridiculous. Even in the Nikon forum lots of members believe that the new Canons are stunning, so do the Nikons. I think you cant go wrong with either.

But reading your fight over the cmt is fun. LOL. So I just want to add some fuel.
 
DarkShift said:
Look at this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tienlu/6592665681/meta/in/pool-859900@N24

Its says f2.8 for 50mm/2.5 +LSC on 5d mkII. Should not be possible if +1 stop was added to the exif.

Also this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=25268746&changemode=1

Unless that was changed for mkIII (which I doubt) you're wrong. DR had to open exp time by one stop.
Click to expand...
IR uses the Sigma 70mm whenever possible. They have answered this question to other inquiries about the test lenses they use. The only exception is for M4/3, for which there is no appropriate Sigma lens.

The confusion is caused by some of the EXIF information not being reported correctly. However, if you go to these test shots in IR and click on the Show EXIF button and scroll down to the last section of EXIF data, you'll see that it correctly states Sigma 70mm macro. If that isn't a good enough explanation for you, ask yourself why in the world would they conduct their tests (including their resolution shots) with a converter added?

The real reason that IR uses different exposure settings for different cameras for given ISOs is that sensitivity varies from camera to camera. IR tries to minimize the effect of that by finding a shutter/aperture setting that gets close to their target exposure. In all likelihood, the 5D3, like the 5D2 before it, is less sensitive than comparable Nikons. Don't take my word for this. Check it out in DXOMark's ISO measurements.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root
 
All right if it is the Sigma then exif data got it all wrong.

I seem I stand corrected which means there might be real difference with the sensor sensitivity.
 
Actually this is a nice demonstration of how fewer pixels = lower noise in the same generation of sensors.

But the measurebators will say that's not valid because it's two different brands. OK, fair enough, how about a D800 vs D4 test?
 
JackM said:
Actually this is a nice demonstration of how fewer pixels = lower noise in the same generation of sensors.

But the measurebators will say that's not valid because it's two different brands. OK, fair enough, how about a D800 vs D4 test?
Click to expand...
I'll do it when D800's files are available. It'll be interesting, even though then technology is really different, much more than Nikon x Canon designs (D800 uses a Sony design).
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Downsizing makes noise more prominent, depends on what method (algorithm) you use. Its so wrong to compare ISO that way.

--
Best Regards,
Goran S.
 
rhlpetrus said:
I'll do it when D800's files are available. It'll be interesting, even though then technology is really different, much more than Nikon x Canon designs (D800 uses a Sony design).
Click to expand...
Doesn't the D4 use a Sony chip? I would think D800 vs D4 would solve this argument once and for all.
 
If 'Nearest Neighbor' of 'Bicubic Sharper' used then original should have better IQ regarding noise, 'far better image quality' not sure about that. ;)

--
Best Regards,
Goran S.
 
Nikon designed and fabbed out. Lots of conjecture on which fab, but no proofs.
 
Which is a definite help in making it look better in this image. Ithink the d4 will be about 1 stop ahead, which is fantastick for the 5D3. Hoeing the d800 ca match the 5D3. that may be tough at full rez.
 
only that it is not as easy to compare for most of us I think.

any process cannot be perfect but it should be less than our eyes can tell.
that's why Nikon/Sony dare to cook their RAWs (I suspect Canon also do it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top